Do you believe in magic? Mitt Romney does

MITT ROMNEY is optimistic about optimism. In fact, it’s pretty much all he’s got. And that fact should make you very pessimistic about his chances of leading an economic recovery in the US.

As many people have noticed, Romney’s five-point “economic plan” is very nearly substance-free. It vaguely suggests that he will pursue the same goals Republicans always pursue – weaker environmental protection, lower taxes on the wealthy. But it offers neither specifics nor any indication why returning to George W Bush’s policies would cure a slump that began on Bush’s watch.

In his meeting with donors in Boca Raton, Florida, however, Romney revealed his real plan, which is to rely on magic. “My own view is,” he declared, “if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see – without actually doing anything – we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.”

In fairness to Romney, his assertion that electing him would spontaneously spark an economic boom is consistent with his party’s current economic dogma. Republican leaders have long insisted that the main thing holding the economy back is the “uncertainty” created by Barack Obama’s statements – roughly speaking, that businesspeople aren’t investing because Obama has hurt their feelings.

There is, however, no evidence supporting this dogma. Our protracted economic weakness isn’t a mystery, it’s what normally happens after a major financial crisis. Furthermore, business investment has actually recovered fairly strongly since the official recession ended. What’s holding us back is mainly the continued weakness of housing combined with a vast overhang of household debt, the legacy of the Bush-era housing bubble.

By the way, in saying that our prolonged slump was predictable, I’m not saying that it was necessary. We could and should have greatly reduced the pain by combining aggressive fiscal and monetary policies with effective relief for highly indebted homeowners; the fact that we didn’t reflects a combination of timidity on the part of both the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve, and scorched-earth opposition on the part of the Republicans.

Back to the optimism thing. It’s true that some studies suggest a secondary role for uncertainty in depressing the economy – and conservatives have seized on these studies, claiming vindication. But if you actually look at the measures of uncertainty involved, they’ve been driven not by fear of Obama but by events such as the euro crisis and the stand-off over the debt ceiling. (Okay, I guess you could argue that electing Romney might encourage businesses by promising an end to Republican economic sabotage.)

Efforts to base policy on speculations about business psychology have a track record – and it’s not a good one.

Back in 2010, as European nations began implementing savage austerity programmes to placate bond markets, it was common for policymakers to deny that these programmes would have a depressing effect.

“The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect,” insisted Jean-Claude Trichet, then the president of the European Central Bank. Why? Because these measures would “increase the confidence of households, firms and investors”.

At the time I ridiculed such claims as belief in the “confidence fairy”. And sure enough, austerity programmes actually led to Depression-level economic downturns across much of Europe.

Is he? As it happens, Romney offered a testable proposition in his Boca remarks: “If it looks like I’m going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president’s going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy.” How’s that going? Not well. Over the past month conventional wisdom has shifted from the view that the election could easily go either way to the view that Romney is very likely to lose; yet markets are up, not down, with major stock indexes hitting their highest levels since the economic downturn began.

Romney’s whole campaign has been based on the premise that he can become president simply by not being Barack Obama. Why shouldn’t he believe that he can fix the economy the same way?

But will he get a chance to put that theory to the test? At the moment, I’m not optimistic.

We reserve the right to remove any content at any time from this Community, including without limitation if it violates the Community Standards. We ask that you report content that you in good faith believe violates the above rules by clicking the Flag link next to the offending comment or by filling out this form. New comments are only accepted for 3 days from the date of publication.